Home » Posts tagged 'Abuse'
Tag Archives: Abuse
With the reports of the attack on the Canadian parliament still echoing around the mainstream media it seems that this is, surprise surprise another Jihadist attack :
Ottawa was put into lockdown overnight Australian time after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, shot to death a Canadian soldier standing guard at the nation’s war memorial on Wednesday, then stormed Parliament in a hail of gunfire before he was killed by the sergeant-at-arms.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the act a “terror attack” as he said that Canadians would not be intimidated by such actions.
I do think that I may be re reading a rather well worn sermon if I say that this is yet another proof that allowing ourselves to be blind to the religious affiliations of the immigrants that have flooded into the western countries after the second world war. To some extent this is the truth that dare not speak its name. You see if anyone dares to say that there is a problem with so many of those who follow the religion invented by Mohammad we are shouted down as if we are advocating under age buggery. just look at the sort of panicked tweet from from the deputy leader of the Greens:
— sarah hanson-young (@sarahinthesen8) October 23, 2014
The far left are altogether too keen to make excuses for Muslim migrants and one of the big ways they do this is to denounce anyone who even implicitly questions the bonafides of any Muslim . However I think that there have been enough instances of Jihadists emerging form the western communities of the Muslim Diaspora for us to at least question the wisdom of allowing the importation of further Muslim immigrants.
No matter how many virtues that we may find in multiculturalism, like the things that have clearly enriched our society, we can’t pretend that it is a rose without thorns and our task as a culture is to find a way that we can enjoy the blossoms without bleeding profusely from the thorns, and that may require some very tough decisions, decisions that sir Humphrey would describe as “very courageous”
Does this sound familiar?
The aphorism that we should all heed here may be at odds with my personal lack of faith but all that I can say is “there but for the grace of god go us” this is the ultimate end of the trail for political correctness and frankly its not somewhere that we ever want to be.
From my appearance with a (now greying) red beard, blond hair and blue eyes its pretty obvious that I have some measure of Anglo Saxon blood in my veins, thanks to the period of English history when the Saxons were ascendant . What would people think if I were to begin to insist that I am a Saxon? Or if my children were to do the same and therefore ignoring the fact that their Opa was a Dutchman from Rotterdam? Or that their Grandmother’s family were all good Irish Catholics? Under the way of thinking of those who sued Andrew Bolt I or my children should forever be unquestioned were we to insist that we are Saxons (even though my daughter has dark hair and hazel eyes ) if my family insisting that we are Saxons is a shallow a conceit, and one that I could insist upon would it make someone a bigot if they were to question that conceit? I might certainly dislike my conceits being questioned, I might even feel offended , insulted even a bit intimidated because I have had something as fundamental as they way that I ethically self identify but would it mean that those who ask those uncomfortable questions are “bigots” ?
Yesterday in the senate our Attorney General said in answer to a question that “every Australian has the right to be a bigot” it was a nicely put argument that has got the latte sippers choking on their milky brews because I gather that many on the left are rather certain that being a bigot is about the worst thing that its possible to be unless you are an adult with an unhealthy interest in the contents of a child’s underpants which is of course just a (little) bit worse. Strangely enough Pat Condell published a vid yesterday in which bigotry is quite cleverly considered, its only a short rant so please consider this:
What Condell’s rant tells us with some clever wit is that the politically correct want to control the way that people speak , often for rather noble reasons, but noble reasons or not the result is more toxic than the intemperate speech that the PC police would have silenced. Which brings us back to the clause in the racial vilification act that the government proposes to seriously amend.
The problem that our friends from the left far too often use a claim of bigotry as a sort of universal shut up when there is a truth that they find uncomfortable, a certain learned gentleman of this blogs acquaintance was very fond of insisting that anyone who thinks that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is a bigot. Our learned friend is obviously wishing to see the standing of homosexuals in our society raised and more respected. Likewise our own Ray Dixon is extremely sensitive about the way that Muslims and Aboriginals are perceived in our society he has the most noble motives in his desire to see multiculturalism work and to ensure that those from outside the majority are do not have to endure any kind of prejudicial treatment. The problem with wanting to enforce any sort of superficial niceness is that the result is a sort of bullying that Pat Condell so eloquently rails against in his video it ends up protecting that which, in a civil society, should be free to explore ventilate and maybe reconsider. Thus when 18c was used to shut Andrew Bolt up so that the notion of self selected ethnic identity by those who sued him under 18c would remain unconsidered, our society lost a good opportunity to take a long hard look at ourselves and just what it means to have any sort of ethnic identity. Some who harshly ventilate their own feelings or beliefs of such issues may certainly meet the definition of bigotry but the way to counter such views is not with the blunt instrument of a widely cast law but by their fellows convincing them that the prejudice is both wrong and more importantly unproductive and unlikely to “win friends or influence people”.
What George Brandis was saying is an iteration of the famous Voltaire aphorism , namely “I utterly disagree with what you are saying but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” its not a principle that we should disavow at all if we want to enjoy a truly free and pluralistic society but its a sad reflection of of friends from the left who are both very keen to be the champions of free speech and to enforce”niceness” is it any wonder that they are being called hypocrite?
So lets defend free speech and encourage niceness in social discourse because, to cite another aphorism you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink.
This morning I was having one of my regular early morning chats with the family capitalist brother (who likes to chat to me a from his car as he does the morning rounds of his empire) and he was chiding me for not blogging about the recent UN condemnation of the Holy see for not doing more about clerics who sexually abused children. Well I have thought about it and as serious as I think the issue of clerical abuse is I also think that the UN body involved has more than a few axes to grind and as a consequence their criticism is itself somewhat flawed, not that I am saying that any sexual abuse of children can or should be ignored its just that I can’t help but think that ANYTHING that comes out of the UN is dodgy and that we should suspect hidden agendas in almost all cases. Further to some extent I buy the argument that the individual elements of the church have a certain level of individual autonomy that has not been considered or understood by the UN. That said I don’t really want to talk about abuse within the Catholic Church or even the arguable worse revelations about abuse within boys homes run by the Salvation Army that have been aired in the royal commission recently either. No, my attention today is on this story as reported in today’s Fairfax press
Cue the apologists from the left for anything done in the name of Allah, after all they may argue that Ahmad Chamma, 26 was just being a good and devout Muslim who is following the example of the Prophet in marrying a young prepubescent girl. It even appears that the man in question has waited till the girl is older than was the case with Mohammad and his child bride. But what horrifies me is that this unacceptable situation appears to have been endorsed by his mosque, and despite the disclaimer in the quote above I doubt that there was a lack of consent or even active endorsement of the union from the girl’s parents either.
Now I’m going to ask you, dear reader, to consider this; which is ethically worse, that individuals with in an religion act counter to its teachings and use their position with its power structure to find, groom, and exploit children or individuals within a religion who follow the example of its founder to exploit and sexually abuse children?
To be frank I don’t think there is much in it between the two, but on balance I tend to think that the latter is worse because it has made such abuse more blatant , “culturally defensible”and more immune to any possibility that the vile practice can be extinguished.
Cue Richard Ryan Comrades
I tend to think that at the minions of the far left will be having a sort of electric orgasm of sorts with the revelation that the NSA has been monitoring the internet, and phone numbers called. Well all I can say is “big farking deal” its utterly beyond being any sort of threat to anyone’s personal liberty. The reason that I am so indifferent it is simply a mater of the scale of the number of transactions by both phone and over the internet; its just so big that no agency has the manpower to watch each and every one of the people who use modern communications technology.
As for the chap who has outed himself as the source of this story why do I smell the distinct odour of the self-immolation here? What is it with younger people not respecting the oaths that they agree to when they join the likes of the military or the NSA? Are we truly living in an age when oaths mean nothing at all? Are these solemn promises not properly considered by the likes of Bradley Manning and Ed Snowdon? Oh I am sure that Snowdon like Manning will become darlings of the conspiracy theory nutters and the far left but what their treachery really shows us is the anarchy of internationalism. You see last night I actually stayed up and watched the interview with Julian Assauge where he conceded that information that he published from Manning was of use to the likes of the (thankfully) late Osama bin Laden and he was utterly indifferent to that reality. Like so many of his ilk he is indifferent to the the larger implications of his behaviour. Frankly I think hope that he spends many years locked up, either in that tiny room in the Ecuadorian embassy or in a jail cell. The man is clearly an utter egomaniac and nothing more than the leader of a rather seedy secular cult.
Ah yes who could miss Gillard insisting that under Abbott women won’t be allowed to kill their unborn children with impunity as they can now do. Heaven in a hand basket have you ever seen such desperate nonsense? The woman is utterly deranged with her brain stuck very firmly into bullshit mode and worse yet she seems to be entirely lacking in any sense of the dignity of the office she currently holds. Then again its hardly surprising when she has Brother Number One snapping at her heels, generally I detest Mark Latham but I tend to think that there is more than a speck of truth in his claims on Q&A that Rudd is on a revenge mission and doing his darnedest to ensure that Gillard’s government has the hardest possible fall from what little grace that she has left. If he manages to achieve that then history will judge her far more harshly than it judges Brother Number One. I think that at this point Rudd does not even care about being reinstated , the entire point of his behaviour is to humiliate Gillard. I am reminded of an anecdote told to me by my late father where he reminded me that with in the ALP the real political fight is for dominance within the party rather than electoral success out side of it and the current party is a perfect example of this adage.
All the while a mood of utter despondency has set in among the lefty luvvies they too have given up on there being any sort of good showing from Labor, its almost as if they are beginning the Post mortem on the body of the Gillard government even though it is technically still alive . However the body of Labor is so diseased that it won’t even be considered for organ donation .
Apologies for the rambling nature of the post this morning its wet and more than a bit miserable here today…
Hmm I think that calls for Bacon and eggs for a well deserved breaking of my fast.
Its this attitude from the Muslim men in Western Sydney that clearly worries GD and to be frank it worries me as well because when we have these men having first loyalty to Islam rather than Australia it is but a very tiny step from there to overt acts of violence from the disdain that these men clearly feel towards the secular democracy that is the essence of our society.
Very big sigh Comrades
Hat tip to Bolta 😉